A Chat with Chris Crawford

Author and Screenshots: Mathew Tschirgi
Editing: Cecil Casey
Game Packaging Scans: Bill Loguidice
Online Layout: Mathew Tschirgi and David Torre

Chris Crawford may very well be one of the best game designers you've never heard of. He started working in the game design industry for Atari in 1979 and continued until 1984 when he switched over to computer game design. Many of the games he designed were ahead of their time. Balance of the Planet (1990, DOS) was the first environmental simulation game, managing to both illuminate and entertain players at the same time. Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot (1987, DOS) managed to convey a sense of paranoia and empathy through dialogues that primarily consisted of just icons.
 

Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot Packaging (Front)

Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot Packaging (Back)

Impressed by the dialogue system in Trust and Betrayal, I was amazed at how similar it was conveyed to the dialogue system in Will Wright's The Sims (2000, Windows). Both games featured dialogue that was only represented via icons. I asked Crawford if he thought games in the future would reach a point where they focus more on character relationships with Non-Playable Characters over graphical interfaces.

Trust and Betrayal - Dialogue system

"I'm sure of it; my own work has demonstrated the feasibility of this. It's no longer a question of hardware or software; it's just a matter of putting the money together and building products. The stuff is complicated and completely different in style from regular games. For example, if you want to do personal relationships, you have to stop thinking in terms of spatial relationships. You don't need maps in a game about relationships; you need data structures that measure and compute emotional relationships, not physical ones," Crawford said.

Crawford certainly has a point. The Sims, for instance, is about relationships in a sense because you have to make your avatar maintain as many relationships as possible with other "Sims" (computer controlled avatars) in order to get hired at better jobs. However, you never quite empathize with the relationships your avatar gets into; they simply speak gibberish to each other while nonsensical graphics pop up in comic-book style word bubbles.

The Sims

Your avatar might hit on the Sim next door, but the Sim never chats about how unromantic her husband was when they went on a date last night. The abstraction of conversation in The Sims allows players to imagine whatever their avatar is talking about, but it also prevents players from truly connecting with their avatar.

Taking care of your Sim is like having a goldfish for a pet-you feed it every once in a while, but don't get any emotional response from it. Conversations are so abstracted that a true connection with other Sims is next to impossible, essentially making the game a spruced-up Tamagotchi.

Crawford's own Trust and Betrayal offers a more intriguing series of character interaction. Set on the moon of Kira, your avatar is an acolyte who is trying to gain a perfect set of auras to become the next Shepherd. To win the game, your avatar must defeat various computer controlled acolytes in mental combat. The majority of gameplay is spent chatting with fellow acolytes, trying to figure out which ones are friends and which ones are foes.

Trust and Betrayal

After a certain number of moves, the mental combat portion comes into play.
The gameplay creates such a sense of paranoia in the player because they don't know which acolytes to trust. Every once in a while there is a random event which fleshes out the personalities of an avatar while offering the player a choice of how their avatar should react to a situation. While the game play takes a bit of getting used to, its unique method of allowing players to have their avatar interact with other acolytes on such a close level allows for a kind of emotional attachment to Non-Player Characters that is unusual for a computer game.

When asked for an example of a game that has come close to being a commercial interactive story project, Crawford points me to Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern's Facade, which has just been released online as a free download via a 800MB torrent. Crawford described an early version of it as, "It's a working interactive storytelling system, which is better than anybody else has achieved."

Facade has received raves from a variety of sources, including MSNBC and Gamespot.

With Crawford having been a veteran of the gaming industry, I decided to ask him for his thoughts on the whole "EAspouse controversy," in which the wife of an Electronic Arts employee posted a lengthy blog entry describing the work conditions her husband faced; this blog entry has influenced the International Game Developers Association to form a Quality of Life committee.

I was a bit surprised to learn that long hours weren't always mandated at gaming companies--or at least at Atari, where Crawford used to work.

"I worked hard on my projects, but only because I wanted to. Nobody ever pressured me to rush the job. Indeed, all through the 80s, the idea of crunch mode was seen with some distaste.

In the first place, crunch mode generates tons of mistakes; when you overwork people, they start to make mistakes. There's a reason why airline pilots are required to meet strict standards for sleep before a flight.

In the second place, crunch mode always demonstrates poor management. A manager should be able to schedule the project so as to bring everything in on deadline and under budget. Any manager who can't bring his projects in on schedule and under budget should be fired. In the games biz, however, crunch time is used as a means of exploiting the youngsters who agree to work at the company.

The system is rather like that used by armies. You maintain a corps of officers who run things, and add a thick layer of enlisted cannon fodder. The whole army is basically a plumbing system that funnels cannon fodder to the front, expends it, and replaces it with more. In the same way, the games biz maintains a cadre of old pros who manage the eager young fools willing to endure this nonsense for a few years. They come in, you work them like slaves until they drop out, then you open the outside door and crack and say, 'We'll take another employee now' and the luck guy who manages to push his way through the crowd elbows in and congratulates himself on his great good fortune," Crawford said.

Probably one of the main reasons for so many companies insisting on longer and longer periods of crunch time is the need to release a game as quickly as possible. This especially applies to sequels and licensed movie spin-offs, where a game title has to come out at the same time (or slightly before) the release of the film itself.

Let's say a gaming company works on a game for a few years called "Deadly Explosions". Much to their surprise, it's a breakout hit, forcing them to come out with a sequel, "Deadly Explosions 2: The More the Merrier!", under a tighter deadline. The longer it takes for a sequel to be released, the greater the potential is for the consumer to forget about the franchise in the first place. Ironically, the quicker a game is developed, the buggier it usually ends up being.

While it's ultimately better to see more original games in the first place, rather than seeing the usual cookie-cutter sequels, it's a hard fact that most of the more successful game companies are based on franchises. If the schedule for developing a game was increased by even six months, perhaps the final quality of the game itself would greatly improved due to extra development time. But these companies feel that this extra development cost would adversly impact their bottom line.

I decided to round out the interview with asking Crawford what he thought of the various level editors that came with recent games as a way for people to learn game design.

"I suppose that a rank beginner would learn something by playing with a level editor, but this just scratches the surface. The real heart of game design lies in designing systems of algorithms.

Those algorithms have to be expressed through a programming language, but the important part is the algorithms. There's no reason why a beginner shouldn't work in Java--it's clearly the language of the future. The performance hit that Java imposes is no longer a deal-killer, and there's nothing better for publicity than putting your work up on the web," Crawford said.

By creating games that try to innovate instead of emulate, Chris Crawford has proven himself as a designer who has been and remains ahead of his time. While this interview has just supplied a peek into his thoughts on current issues in the gaming industry, those who wish to find out more should check out Chris's official web site, Erasmatazz, which features plenty of archived articles covering a variety of topics.

A Reader’s Guide to the System Ranking Matrix -Technical Statistics and Ratings for U.S. Game Capable Systems - 2005 Update

Author and Article Layout: Bill Loguidice
Application Development: Don Ferren

Introduction
The System Ranking Matrix is designed to be an at-a-glance guide to the various capabilities and demonstrated marketability of the major videogame and games-capable computer systems released in the United States.

Summary
System Information lists the standard technical specifications of each system. However, rather than list what each system was theoretically capable of, I have listed the standards set by the majority of its game library. For instance, if a system supported up to 128 on-screen colors, but the majority of games utilized only 32, then 32 will be the number given. I have also rounded certain values for consistency.

The matrix not only provides objective technical details for each system, but also thoughtful Armchair Arcade Ratings, which are subjective and generally in relative comparison to each other, as well as specifically to other systems of their generation. While one system may have better technical specifications on paper than another, in real world observations that consider multiple factors such as game availability and quality, the technically weaker system may outscore it. Scores higher than 10 are allowed only where necessary, like Visuals and Audio, as are scores lower than 1. Only whole (such as 3.0) or half points (such as in 7.5) are allowed.

An asterisk (*) indicates a dominant game system in popularity for its era and class.

As this classic Commodore advertisement demonstrates, "IT'S HOW MUCH YOU GET." The matrix is all about what you really get with each system. [Scan by Bill Loguidice from the back cover of Family Computing magazine, May 1985, Volume 3, Number 5]

Explanation
Why a matrix? There is no easy way, without lots of research and hands-on experience, for the average user to visualize where a particular system fits in the context of history and technical capabilities, among other areas. We can spew strictly technical specifications, but the reality is most want to know what a system’s demonstrated or real-world abilities were.

There are so many factors to consider other than simple technical specifications. For instance, the Atari Jaguar may have been a 64-bit system, but did it ever show its full potential? Because the Jaguar was 64-bit, did that automatically make it better than Sega’s later 32-bit Saturn? How do the legendary Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) or Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) stack-up to Sony’s PlayStation 2 (PS2) or Microsoft’s Xbox in key categories? These are questions that can only be answered through direct observation. That’s the purpose behind this matrix—to sift through the hype as objectively as possible so we’ll have our answers.

Why only focus on the U.S.? One reason is to keep the number of systems to a more manageable number. Another reason is that this is where the author’s expertise lies. It is open to see if other authors will take up the cause for other territories that they’re intimately familiar with, such as Japan or Europe. In any case, if you feel there is a system we omitted or would like to comment on other territories, please write in our discussion forums or use the “Add your comment” section provided for each system within the matrix itself.

Setup
The Armchair Arcade Ratings has eight categories leading up to a ninth, which is the overall score.

Let’s face it. For many, the Atari 2600 and NES are the penultimate game machines of their eras or even all-time, but the reality is technology has moved on, and, while the games are certainly no less fun than they used to be, areas like control have arguably improved, and audio-visual technology has definitely leapt forward. Therefore, while the Atari 2600 and NES can potentially achieve perfect 10’s in several categories, it will be impossible to give them scores anywhere near 10 in some of the more technically-skewed categories. This gives relatively new systems like the Nintendo GameCube – which has a high ranking in visual and audio categories, but a lower ranking in software depth – a fairer basis of comparison. Alternately, the older the system, the more potentially mature the offerings, such as in software diversity, which should help to offset many of the newer system’s technical advantages.

Category Explanation
Let’s examine each of the nine categories, in order.

Visuals
This category takes into account such features as a system’s resolution, colors and animation—basically everything that ends up on a screen. Some systems such as Tiger’s Game.com and Nintendo’s original GameBoy can display relatively high resolution black and white graphics, but blur on moving objects detracts from the overall experience. In fact, difficulty in actually seeing the action on the screen of the original GameBoy further hurts its score in this category since a good light source is required. Other systems like Sony’s PlayStation 1 have high resolution modes that were rarely used, so that factors little as a benefit in its final scoring. In fact, most systems have theoretical polygon or sprite output values that are quite high on paper, but in real world applications like games, they were rarely, if ever, realistic targets. Our final example to show how visuals were judged – the original Commodore Amiga – had a 4,096 color mode which was a bit odd and difficult to properly utilize, so most games only used 32 colors, so this is what that system was rated on.

Audio
This category judges a system’s inherent sound abilities, except where otherwise specified. For example, if a significant number of games utilized an add-on and the add-on was and still is quite common – like with the Magnavox Odyssey2’s and Mattel Intellivision’s voice modules – then those may be counted in the rating. For a system like the Apple IIgs – which in theory had incredible inherent stereo sound capabilities for its era – it was nonetheless crippled by the fact that without a relatively obscure add-on, it was only able to output a mono signal. In more modern examples, the Nintendo GameCube is “only” able to output Dolby Pro Logic II sound (analog cables), while the Sony PlayStation 2 and the Microsoft Xbox can output the superior Dolby Digital (digital cables), but only the Xbox utilizes the ability in the majority of its games. Nuances like these affect each system’s ratings.

Controller Options and Quality
In order to achieve a high ranking in this category, portable and handheld systems must offer an especially well-built control panel, and other types of systems must feature a wide-range of easy-to-find and well supported options. Criteria includes whether the system offers digital or analog control (or both, as applicable), gamepads, joysticks, light guns, dance or foot pads (or other specialty options), steering wheels, keyboards, vibration/force feedback, proper accommodations for more than one player, and so on. The more one system has and supports, the better the scoring.

Add-Ons, Peripherals, Expandability, Features
Items like disk drives, memory cards, display options, headphone support, touch screen capabilities, RAM add-ons, printer support and other types of upgrades and modules are the criteria used to evaluate this category. At the top is a system like the modern PC, which is the ultimate type of generalist system, with a seemingly endless array of useful and useless add-ons (sometimes at the expense of ease-of-use), while near the bottom is a system like the Emerson Arcadia 2001 where the system you got is the exact system you were always stuck with, hard-wired controllers and all. Having a lower score in this category does not necessarily indicate a poor system, but it’s almost always preferable to have more options and flexibility to tweak your entertainment experience rather than less.

Software Lineup Diversity and Complexity
First, this category determines whether a system has a good range of game genres with sufficient diversity. Second, this category determines if any of the games for the system in question have depth, or whether they are predominantly shallow diversions (a mix is best, but all depth over all shallow would rate a bit higher). For instance, the Atari 2600’s software library includes arcade, puzzle, racing, role-playing, adventure, fighting, card and text games, and offers options for those seeking quick or longer-term play, so it scores high. The Mattel Aquarius, on the other hand, misses many key genres, so its rating is quite low.

Software Density and Raw Number of Mainstream Titles
This category puts a great deal of emphasis on the total number of titles in a system’s library. Some systems, like the Nintendo Virtual Boy have a handful, while others, like the Sega Dreamcast have hundreds, while others still, like the modern PC, have countless thousands, so each system is scored accordingly. The primary focus of this category is on commercial titles, but certain systems either due to age or popular use of public domain software, blur the commercial designation, hence the use of “mainstream” as a qualifier. So any well distributed, readily available game of acceptable quality counts towards the system’s library and thus rating.

Ease to Set Up Optimal Game Playing System
DOS-based PC systems could be very powerful and quite flexible – thus rating highly in other categories – but were often quite unpleasant to try and set up to actually get a game running (can you free enough memory?), then working optimally (is there enough memory to have sound?), so these will score lower than a typical console, like the Atari Jaguar, which is basically plug-and-play. Some systems score lower in this category because of uncomfortable ergonomics or needlessly complex setups, physical or otherwise.

Initial Popularity
This category examines a system’s popularity with the general buying public, with a heavy bias towards when first released. Some systems achieved greater fame after they were pulled from the market, such as GCE’s Vectrex, and some systems are still popular with certain communities today, like Atari’s 2600, but those types of scenarios are not heavily factored into the score because of all the variables involved (for instance, newly published software is available for the Atari 5200, but some of the original software is difficult to find).

Overall Score
The grand culmination where we arrive at our system’s final ranking. What is your favorite system’s total score?

Category Breakdown Example
Finally, in order to illustrate the thinking that went into each rating, read the following breakdown of the Initial Popularity category.

Ranking of 0.5: APF M-1000, MP1000 and Imagination Machine; Entex Adventurevision; Fairchild Channel F; Memorex Video Information System (VIS); RCA Studio II; Spectravideo SV-series; Timex Sinclair 2068; Tomy Tutor; and Watara Supervision
The systems that achieved a 0.5 as a ranking essentially were released into the marketplace and available for purchase for at least a limited time, but few made purchases and even today the most hardcore gamers have a hard time identifying the systems.

Ranking of 1: Coleco Telstar Arcade, Commodore 16 and Plus/4, CP/M Compatible Systems (Kaypro, Osborne, etc.), Emerson Arcadia 2001, Mattel Aquarius with Mini Expander and 16K Memory Cartridge, Milton Bradley Microvision, NUON DVD Platform, Tapwave Zodiac, Tiger Telematics Gizmondo, Timex Sinclair 1000/1500 with 16K Memory Expansion, Toy Quest GoGo TV, and XaviX XaviXPORT Game Console
The systems that achieved a 1 as a ranking may have been released to some fanfare or expectations, but never took off in the marketplace, particularly in reference to gaming. The two Commodore systems suffered from a lack of software compatibility with the best selling Commodore 64 and were too underpowered at the time of release to establish their own niche. Other systems like the Tiger Telematics Gizmondo and Toy Quest GoGo TV are too new to understand their final impact on the market.

Ranking of 1.5: Commodore Amiga CD32, Commodore PET Series, IBM PCjr with Second Generation Keyboard, Nintendo Virtual Boy, Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer 3 (CoCo3) - 128K Unit, and Tiger Game.com
The systems that achieved a 1.5 as a ranking were popular or long lasting enough to have a devoted or somewhat mainstream following, but never in significant enough numbers to be competitive with other contemporary systems. The Commodore PET series of computers for example, did not have the audio-visual horsepower of other systems of the day to bring their gaming abilities to the next level, likely limiting their ultimate potential for market growth.

Ranking of 2: Bally Astrocade (and brand variations); Magnavox Odyssey2 with Voice Module; Nokia N-Gage/QD; Sega 32X; SNK Neo Geo Pocket Color; and Tandy TRS-80 Model I, III, IV
The systems that achieved a 2 as a ranking made enough impact on the marketplace to have reasonable sales and a memorable existence for most gamers. The Bally Astrocade actually had several re-releases, which helped its score, while SNK’s Neo Geo Pocket Color was always facing a losing battle going against Nintendo’s GameBoy juggernaut, but was around long enough and at the right time (a larger pool of gamers to draw from, for instance) to garner a loyal following.

Ranking of 2.5: Cell Phone Platform (BREW or J2ME-enabled late model phones), and Commodore VIC 20 (Vic-20)
The Commodore Vic-20 was a best-selling computer, but ultimately had a shortened lifespan once its more powerful sibling, the 64, was released. BREW or J2ME cell phones are in a lot of consumer’s hands with lots of gaming options available, but it’s still a growing category in the US.

Ranking of 3: 3DO Multiplayer, Apple IIgs, Atari 5200 SuperSystem, Atari 7800 ProSystem, Atari Jaguar and Jaguar CD, Coleco Adam, GCE Vectrex, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to 286's with CGA graphics and PC speaker sound (DOS), NEC Turbo-Grafx 16 CD/Super CD, Philips CD-I with Digital Video (DV) add-on, Pocket PC Platform (late model), Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer 1/2 (CoCo1 or CoCo2) - Up to 64K, Sega CD, and SNK Neo Geo and Neo Geo CD
The systems that achieved a 3 as a ranking had acceptable lifespans and a good amount of support. However, all of these systems lacked something to take their popularity to the next level, most typically never being able to overcome more popular contemporary competition. The Atari 5200 SuperSystem had poor controllers and was released too close to the videogame crash of 1984 to have more of an impact. The Pocket PC platform, while currently still active, has always taken a back seat to the Palm platform in terms of raw numbers. Systems like the Radio Shack TRS-80 CoCo2 was always a fourth or fifth choice in the U.S. to systems like the Apple II series, Atari 8-bit computers and Commodore 64, among others. Apple’s IIgs was limited by Apple themselves since it was in direct competition against their own Macintosh line, which Apple deemed the future of the company.

Ranking of 4: Coleco ColecoVision
Coleco’s system was only hampered by being somewhat in the shadow of Atari’s wildly popular 2600 and the videogame crash of 1984. The console had a brief life in mail order outlets after the crash.

Ranking of 4.5: Atari ST Series, Commodore Amiga Series - AGA Chipset, and Texas Instruments TI-994/A with Voice Module
The Atari ST series of computers never caught on like their contemporary PC, Macintosh, and Commodore Amiga (ECS) competitors, but still had a market impact. Commodore’s AGA chipset systems like the Amiga 1200, never reached the same popularity levels of their own prior ECS-based models and were soon overrun by the popularity of Windows PC’s. The Texas Instruments TI-994/A was popular, particularly after drastic price cuts, but never cracked into the top three systems of the day, which were the Apple II series, the Commodore 64, and the Atari 8-bit computer line.

Ranking of 5: Apple Macintosh pre-iMac PowerPC-based - Full Color, Apple Macintosh up to 16 color 680x0-based, Apple Macintosh up to G4 or better with Current Generation 3D graphics, Atari Lynx, Mattel Intellivision with Voice Module, and PalmOS Platform (late model)
The systems that achieved a 5 as a ranking represent the median of popularity. In the case of Apple’s Macintosh, it was always a popular system, but never approached the top in any of its iterations. Today, the Macintosh line has been marginalized by the popularity of Windows PC’s, but counts among its many millions of owners a rabidly devoted core of fans. Mattel’s Intellivision is one of the more interesting stories. While never reaching the top of the videogame world, Mattel’s system saw several revisions of compatible hardware and can count among its contemporary competitors both the Atari 2600 and NES, having a long and eventful lifespan.

Ranking of 6.5: NEC Turbo-Grafx 16 - Turbo Express, and Sega Saturn
Both of these systems were usually in third place in their respective generations, but still had devoted followings with good support and a continuously loyal fan base. The biggest problem with each of these systems was that they were up against systems that would become legendarily popular, which in the Saturn’s case was Sony’s PlayStation and in NEC’s case, the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo consoles.

Ranking of 7: Sega Game Gear, Sega Master System (SMS) and Sony PlayStation Portable* (PSP)
Both of the systems from Sega were distant seconds to Nintendo machines, but were popular choices for those that wanted an alternative to the choice of the masses. Relatively speaking, both of these systems did extremely well. Sony's PSP is too new to pass final judgement, but so far seems fairly promising.

Ranking of 7.5: Tandy 1000 Series
This series of systems from Tandy were among the most popular of the mostly PC compatible systems of its era, with some unique features such as improved graphics and sound that received great developer support.

Ranking of 8: Commodore Amiga Series - ECS Chipset, Amiga CDTV; Microsoft Xbox*; Nintendo 64; Nintendo DS*; Nintendo GameCube*; and Sega Dreamcast
None of these systems ever reached the top spot in their respective generations, but still moved a tremendous number of units and received a wealth of support. Microsoft’s Xbox and Nintendo’s GameCube are still going strong, creating an unprecedented long term three console race with Sony’s unstoppable PlayStation 2 (PS2).

Ranking of 9: Atari 8-bit Computers/XEGS* - 48K - 64K, and IBM and Compatible PC’s up to 386's with EGA graphics and Ad Lib sound (DOS)
Atari’s 8-bit computer line was active in the mainstream from approximately the late 1970’s to the very early 1990’s. While Atari was never able to overcome Apple’s II series or Commodore with the all-time best selling computer, the C-64, the devoted following and vast amount of support made these systems a good choice for the savvy or “accidental” consumer. The IBM EGA and Ad Lib standard began the PC’s dominance of computer gaming, finally reaching a point where the PC specification was becoming technologically competitive with other formats.

Ranking of 10: Apple II Series* - 48K - 128K, Atari 2600 VCS - Standard Unit*, Commodore 64/128* - 64K Software, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium II's with First Generation 3D (Monster 3D equivalent) graphics and Soundblaster Pro sound (DOS/Windows)*, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium IV's with Current Generation 3D graphics and Soundblaster Audigy-level sound (Windows)*, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium's with VGA/SVGA graphics and Soundblaster sound (DOS)*, Nintendo Enterntainment System (NES)*, Nintendo GameBoy Advance/SP*, Nintendo GameBoy Color*, Nintendo GameBoy*, Nintendo Super Nintendo*, Sega Genesis*, Sony PlayStation 1 (PSX/PS1/PSOne)*, and Sony PlayStation 2 (PS2)*
These systems were without question the best selling and most popular computers, consoles, and handhelds of their day, garnering huge followings and tremendous support, often to the detriment of other contemporary systems. For whatever reason, these were or are the systems that resonated with the buying public and set the mark that all other competitors strive to reach.

Conclusion
Let us know what you think of the rankings. If you feel a system should be higher or lower in a category, let us know. While you may feel passionately about a system, facts are always appreciated to backup your opinions. Remember, this matrix was not created to show favoritism to any one system or systems, but to provide as objective a ranking as possible in several key categories. Since this is a “living” document, it is safe to assume that there will be future revisions based on feedback and new system releases. Finally, while great care was taken to make sure the System Information data was researched as carefully as possible, common conclusions may be wrong (for instance, about the system’s most popular resolution) or other data may be incorrect. Since accuracy is our highest goal, please provide your corrections as you uncover possible errors. Keep in mind, the “Add your comment” section will be everyone’s best friend in order to make the matrix as indispensable a reference and discussion tool as possible, so make use of it!

Antic Aardvark in "Old School"

Click for Antic Aardvark in Old School

Atari: The Lost Years of the Coin-Op, 1971 – 1975 (Parts I - IV)

Author: Steve Fulton

Editing and Online Layout: Bill Loguidice and Cecil Casey

Special Thanks: Dan Hower, who graciously allowed us to use many of the images from his collection for this story. You can visit Dan’s Websites at http://www.howervision.net/ and http://www.coinopvideogames.com/. You can view Dan’s arcade flyers and many others at the fascinating http://www.arcadeflyers.com

Additional Special Thanks: Curt Vendel, for his assistance to the author with this article. You can see his impressive collection of Atari information at http://www.atarimuseum.com

The classic games of the Atari coin-op world have previously been well established. Books like The First Quarter explain the history of games like Pong, Breakout! and Asteroids in lurid detail, but leave out many of the games Atari produced in-between. Of the many recent “Atari Classics” game collections released by Hasbro and Infogrames (now using the Atari name), very little of this early history is covered. Most of these early arcade coin-ops were designed as discreet logic machines built out of individual integrated circuits with no microprocessor. This makes them very hard to emulate with applications like MAME because each game is essentially its own virtual machine that must be programmed and tailored for a single title. Added to that is the belief that many of these lost games are simple evolutions of Pong, so you can see why the games are almost universally dismissed. Why take the time to create a system to emulate a single, uninteresting Pong variant, when you could just as easily emulate a microprocessor that can play hundreds of games? However, a closer look at these very early games reveals some salient points of interest. Each game that Atari released was an evolutionary step towards a revolution: game play was more complex, controls more precise, graphics a bit sharper, the hardware more elegant, the cabinets more functional, the marketing more targeted. Further, while many think the first successful arcade conversion for the Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) was Taito’s Space Invaders, this is simply not the truth. A good percentage of the original 2600 cartridge library was based on classic Atari coin-ops created from these “lost” years. We will explore these arcade coin-op games year-by-year.

Note: Look for the graphic above within the timeline, as this denotes the known or possible roots of famous Atari 2600 games.

1971

1971: Spring: Bushnell Creates Computer Space

Nolan Bushnell created the first coin-op videogame in his daughter’s bedroom in 1971 while working for Ampex. Inspired by Steve Russell’s Space War, a game he played on the DEC PDP-1 at the University of Utah in the 1960’s, Bushnell worked on his own way to bring the computer game experience to the masses. The largest technical hurdle he faced was inventing a way to fit a game designed to run on a mini-computer that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars into a marketable product that was as affordable as a pinball machine. His brilliant breakthrough was deciding to use discreet logic chips to design the game instead of a microprocessor. This process of creating a game in discreet logic involved assembling individual logic chips on printed circuit boards. The game was programmed completely in hardware. In essence, a discreet logic game was a computer designed for one purpose and one purpose only. While this idea might have seemed like a step backwards to computer engineers, a genius like Bushnell knew it was exactly the solution he was seeking.

1971: Autumn: Selling Computer Space

Bushnell sold his idea to Nutting and Associates, and in late 1971 they attempted to sell and market the game as Computer Space. Nutting had been very successful with a Quiz Show coin-operated game earlier that year, and hoped Computer Space would help them become the leaders in a new market. However, that was not to be. Computer Space landed with a resounding thud. Amusement operators at the 1971 AMOA (Amusement & Music Operators Association) show in Chicago were confused by Computer Space. They were used to buying jukeboxes and pinball machines and had no idea what to do with a videogame. The controls were too complicated and the game too confusing for the average bar room (read: drunk) player. However, the initial failure of Bushnell’s invention did not predict the meteoric rise to success that would soon follow. He had devised a way to make videogames available to the common person and was about to create an entire industry in the process.

1972

1972: May 17: Bushnell Visits Magnavox while working for Nutting

While still working for Nutting, Bushnell visited Magnavox to take a look at the TV videogame system that Ralph Baer had developed for the company. Magnavox had invited interested parties in the electronics industry to try to drum-up enthusiasm for their newest technological breakthrough. The Magnavox Odyssey could play several simple games on a TV, but required real world pieces like dice and playing cards. The game system was designed around an analog computer, which was a computer used for applications that required a continuous change of one or more variables, usually based on the then new idea of an IC amplifier circuit (although tube-based systems had been in use for years). Bushnell left unimpressed as the games did not inspire him and the visuals looked fuzzy. However, the inclusion of a ping-pong style game in the demo would come back to haunt him years later.

1972: June 27: Atari Incorporated

Bushnell, desiring more profits from his games, quit Nutting Associates and formed his own company with Ted Dabney. Bushnell founded Atari's forerunner, Syzygy Corp., with $250 from his savings account, some of it earned from Computer Space at Nutting and Associates. Ted Dabney also contributed $250. When the duo found out the name Syzygy was already taken, they chose the name Atari instead (Atari roughly translates to “you are about to be engulfed”, which comes from the traditional game of GO).

The first use of Atari’s signature logo or mark; the Fuji Symbol (), was registered on June 1, 1973. According to Atari’s trademark registration, it was a design “consisting of a stylized representation of Mount Fujiyama” (Mount Fujiyama, which overlooks Tokyo, Japan, is actually the incorrect way to say its name as the word “Yama” in Japanese means “mountain” already, so native Japanese usually call it “"Fuji-san").

It is interesting to note, the name Syzygy was not jettisoned as early as one would believe. Early flyers for Pong described the game as “From Atari Corporation, Syzygy Engineered.”.

Nutting and Associates did not stop making videogames after Bushnell left to start Atari. Billing themselves as the place “Where videogame technology began”, they went on to create the pong variants Computer Space Ball, Table Tennis, Table Tennis 2, Ric-o-chet and Paddle Derby, as well as one of the first shoot-em-up videogames, Missile Radar. Their most interesting contribution to videogame history was Watergate Caper, a safecracker/code breaker game released in 1973.

In case anyone is mistaken in thinking Grand Theft Auto was the first videogame to have players willingly commit a felony, Watergate Caper tempted gamers to “Break Into Watergate Yourself” 30 years prior. Nutting’s own literature bragged that the game “simulates the larceny in all of us to break in and not get caught”. The company’s last entry in the videogame arena was Wimbledon, a full-color version of pong, released in 1974. Dave Nutting went on to work as a contractor for Midway starting in 1975, where he helped produce the first microprocessor-based videogame (Intel 8080), Gun Fight (Strange Fact: This game started at Taito Corp., as a discrete logic game, and was bought and converted to the Intel 8080 by Nutting -ed.). He then went on to design and program two of the best coin-ops from the golden age, Gorf and Wizard of Wor.

1972: Summer: Pong Engineered

While Bushnell kept Atari in the black by servicing and leasing pinball machines, he hired Al Alcorn, a fellow engineer from Ampex, to develop another videogame. Nolan Bushnell lied to Al Alcorn about having a contract with GE for home Pong to lure him into working for Atari. At first, Bushnell wanted to create a driving game as he had a contract with Bally to do just that, but decided to have Alcorn work on something simple first. The primitive ping-pong game he had seen at Magnavox seemed like a good candidate, but had to be improved. Neither Alcorn nor Bushnell were impressed with Odyssey and its analog components. In any event, Pong was only practice and Bushnell was not planning to take it seriously.

Just like Computer Space, Pong was a discreet logic machine. It had no microprocessor, but instead used individual integrated circuits to create the logic for the game. The key to saving money was designing the game so well that it used the fewest number of chips. Alcorn added small details like “English” and simulated physics that went beyond Bushnell’s original concept, but still kept the circuit board design elegant and cheap.

1972: September: Pong Tested at Andy Capp’s Tavern

The first Pong game is placed in Andy Capp’s Tavern in Sunnyvale, California. People started lining up before the bar opened just to play the game. In some cases, patrons wouldn’t order any drinks at all, but just went in to play Pong.

Bushnell’s goal was for Pong to be designed to be as easy as possible to play. Instead of the pages of instructions for Computer Space, Pong instructions were the model of simplicity: "Avoid missing ball for high score." Two weeks after installing the game, Al Alcorn received a late-night phone call from the manager of the bar. T he game had broken down and he wondered if Alcorn could come fix it. When Alcorn arrived to check the machine, he found a most unusual problem—there were so many quarters jammed into the coin drop that the game had stopped working. Under the coin drop was a plastic milk jug with the top cut off, and it was so filled with quarters that the “credit” mechanism could no longer work!

1972: November: Bushnell Tries to Sell Pong, Decides to Manufacture it Himself

The Pong game was offered to Bally first in lieu of a driving game, but they declined to purchase it as they wanted something that didn’t require two players. Amusement manufacturers didn’t “get it” either. In 1972, pinball and other amusement game manufacturers made machines with many electromechanical and moving parts. Pong had only two moving parts and this baffled them. Few manufacturers could understand or envision the industry changing.

Instead of pursuing established manufacturers, Bushnell decided to manufacture Pong himself. It was his boldest move yet and would ultimately prove successful. He leased an old roller rink in Santa Clara and converted it into a production line. The first Pong game shipped from this facility in November 1972. Bushnell filed a patent for the Pong on-screen control mechanism on November 24, 1972 (US Patent 3,793,483), but not for the game itself.

1972: November 29: Pong Officially Released

“The Newest 2 Player Video Skill Game…”

Bushnell distributed Pong along the pre-existing arcade routes he and Ted Dabney had worked to keep Atari afloat while their first game was being created. Each machine took in around $200 a week, which was nearly four times what other (pinball) games and jukeboxes took in on the same routes.

Carl Sagan wrote of Pong, "As a result of Pong, a player can gain a deep intuitive understanding of the simplest Newtonian physics." The day Pong was released is marked by the coin-op industry as the first nail in the coffin of pinball.

 

1974

1974: First Quarter: Atari Develops Growing Pains

The year 1974 proved to be a difficult one for Atari. The “Jackals”, as Bushnell had described them, continued to make copies of his games for distribution. The major Pong-style games that flooded the market in 1974 were:

• Flim Flam by Meadow Game (a sit-down copy of Pong)

• Fun Four by Bally Games (a Pong variant with four game variations)

• Astrohockey by HID/Visco Games

• Clean Sweep by Ramtek

• Countdown by Volley

• Challenge from Mirco

Competition was just one of Atari’s worries; manufacturing issues had also become a problem. Assembly line quality was terrible and $800 a day in equipment was lost to theft. The line workers were not happy and complained of low wages even though their $1.75 an hour was actually above the minimum wage. Bushnell hired outside managers to help solve these problems, but this only led to further unrest between labor and management. Bushnell was an engineer at heart and the details of being company president were bogging him down.

Bushnell’s concentration on engineering meant that while labor might have been problematic, R&D and engineering were still in good standing. Designers and engineers were having a blast designing and testing new games. They had “rip-roaring” brainstorming bashes at places like hotels and a condo complex where 40 people would get together and discuss ideas for games. Bushnell saw engineering as the core value of his business and made moves to bolster Atari’s engineering capacity even further. He contracted with ex-Ampex employees, Steve Mayer and Larry Edmonds, who were running a high-tech facility in Grass Valley. Atari started an exclusive relationship with this pair of engineers and the facility became known as the “Grass Valley Think Tank”.

1974: January 30: Atari Starts Using the Trademark “Innovative leisure”

January 30, 1974: Atari started using the term “Innovative leisure” to describe their business. They would file to trademark this term in April 1976, and be granted that mark in February 1977.

1974: January 30: Atari Introduces Superpong

“An Improvement On a Proven Money Maker From The Originators Of Pong…”

Superpong was a one or two player contest. This game was an evolution over Pong that used variable ball speeds, angles and three paddles (vertically aligned) for each player. To further spice-up the game, the ball was served from random positions on the screen. Atari described Superpong as “not easily mastered”, but since it is a relatively unknown game, it was probably too hard at a time where ball and paddle games were losing their appeal. Pong competition was too fierce at this point in the coin-op world for Superpong to make any sort of impact. The hardware featured a discreet logic design and was advertised as Durastress™, as well as marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

1974: February: Atari Introduces Rebound (Kee copies with Spike!)

“It’s A Whole New Ball Game…”

Rebound was Atari’s fourth coin-op game and was a simple version of volleyball that required two-players. Steve Jobs signed off on the wiring diagram for the cabinet. A schematic dated 11/31/73 describes this game as “Volleyball”. The game was like a vertical version of pong in which hitting the ball would send it on a parabolic path over four short lines that represented a net. The hardware featured a discreet logic design and was advertised as Durastress™, as well as marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

Rebound was also featured in an unreleased variation on Puppy Pong named Puppy Pong Volleyball. The game used the same cabinet as Puppy Pong, but used the Rebound game.

“The Spike-Man Cometh…from Kee …”

Spike was a copy of Atari’s Rebound. Like most Kee games, features were added to slightly differentiate them from their Atari cousins. In this case, the “Spike” button was added.

1974: March 4: Atari Introduces Quadrapong (Kee copies with Elimination)

“Another Video Action Favorite! Quadrapong is the newest addition to Atari’s Line of unique video skill games. …”

Quadrapong was a two- to four-player table-top, look-down cabinet. Each player was given four points and tasked with defending one side of a diamond-shaped screen. Players lost a point each time one of the others score in his goal and was eliminated if this happened four times. At that point, the goal was sealed and became a solid wall. Hardware was a discreet logic design, advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

“The look of the future is yours’ today with Elimination! …”

Elimination, from Kee Games, was a copy of Atari’s Quadrapong from Kee Games. Like most Kee games, features were added to slightly differentiate them from their Atari cousins. In this case, “extra life pots” are randomly placed on the playfield and the player who hits the ball into one gets a point added back to their score.

1974: March 18: Atari Introduces Gran Trak 10 (Test Marketed)

“From the ‘Pong People’, New videogame concept, big racing action, fantastic sound effects, worldwide market in millions! …”

Gran Trak 10 was the first driving coin-op videogame with a steering wheel, gear shift, and gas and brake pedal controls. It was also the machine that could have ended Atari before they ever really got started. The game was a race against the clock on a single track and there were no other cars except for the player’s. Oil slicks made the player’s car spin-out and the side of the track had to be avoided at all costs. This was a very simple version of many racing games to come. ROM memory was used (in the form of diodes) to store the sprites for the car, track and oil slick.

Atari’s new Grass Valley (Most appropriately named at that time. -ed) think tank was used to design the game, but Atari proper was disappointed by engineering flaws in the original design. Al Alcorn had to step in and fix the game before it went into production.

This fix created costly rework and delays for the game. Worse, an accounting error had Gran Trak 10 selling for $995, when it cost $1095 to manufacture. Because of these problems, Atari lost $500,000 on Gran Trak 10, which was as much as the company had made the previous year. The European version of the game was called: Race Circuit Automaten. The game was advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

1974: July 24^th: Atari Announces Trak 10

Later in 1974, Gran Trak 10 was repackaged into a smaller cabinet and renamed Trak 10. The game cabinet was designed to fit into the smaller spaces that small bar, grocery store and laundromats could set-aside for games.

1974: April 1: Time Magazine Report on “Space Age Pinball” (and Atari)

Some interesting notes from the report:

• Videogames have caught on on college campus, listed as the number two activity behind streaking
• Appeal to businesses that would never have permitted “pinball” games (high class restaurants, hotels)
• Pong machines make about $200 - $300 a week and cost about $1,100 each
• Pong machines take quarters ($.25), while pinball mostly takes dimes ($.10), which makes pinball less profitable
• “Screen games” (as Time calls them) are estimated to take-in $900 million a year
• Industry is about $60 Million all together with 18 U.S. and 23 European (no mention of Japanese) companies

1974: May: Atari’s Second Fiscal Year Ends with a Loss

Atari loses $500,000 in 1973 - 1974 (mostly from the Gran-Trak 10 problems) and cuts half of its staff. Pong games had stopped selling and Bushnell started to look like a one-trick pony. He needed to turn-the-company around with a hit game and some engineering innovations if Atari was going to survive.

1974: Summer: Atari in Dire Financial Straits

In the summer of 1974, Atari was close to bankruptcy and very under capitalized. The company tried to grow too quickly. Atari Japan, set up in 1973, was a complete failure. Bushnell had no idea how to conduct business in Japan. He sold Atari Japan to one of the founders of Namco. The relationship between the two companies would continue for almost two decades.

1974: June: Kee Introduces Formula K (Copy of Gran Trak 10)

Formula K was a one player racing game from Kee games that was a copy of Gran Trak 10. The game featured a different cabinet than Gran Trak 10 and added a new “Lap Timer” feature. Hardware was discreet logic, with ROM used for car and oil slick graphics. No notes are available on how profitable Kee was at this time.

1974: June: Atari Introduces Coupe De Monde

This was a one player only soccer-themed Pong-style game released by Atari Europe. This game was sold in both upright and table-top models. Hardware was discreet logic.

1974: August 21: Atari Introduces Gran Trak 20

“Double your pleasure… double your earnings! …”

Gran Trak 20 was a one or two player version of Gran Trak 10 designed at Grass Valley and fixed by Al Alcorn. This game featured two complete sets of controls (steering wheel, brake pedal, gas pedal, four speed gear shift) and used a black and white screen. The game can be played one or two player, but the two player feature required one quarter per participant. If a player obtained a score of 40 or more, they were awarded a free game (both players if two were playing). However, reaching 40 points on your free game would not extend play another time.

The final date signed-off on engineering documents is August 26, 1974, but the game’s release to the public was later in the year. The hardware was discreet logic, with diode-based ROM used for the car and oil slick graphics. The game was marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

“The forerunner to this game, Formula K, Sold Out! An Industry first! …”

Twin Racer was a one or two player Kee Games copy of Gran Trak 20. This game added the new feature of the “ram effect”, which allowed you to knock your opponent off the track. Free play was awarded at 20 points instead of Gran Trak’s 40. Another Kee Games “innovation” with this game was the “Automatic Drive Button”, which was advertised as “for ladies and kids – must for arcades”. The hardware was discreet logic with diode ROM used for car and oil slick graphics.

1974: October 31: Atari Introduces Pin Pong Coin-op

“Atari’s New Unique Concept …”

Pin Pong was a one or two player black and white video pinball game, with a rather crude table. The Pin Pong flyer describes the game as: “In Pin-Pong a gravity algorithm accelerates the ball downward to give realistic pinball action on the screen”. The ball movement within the game was governed by a patented ball movement circuit. The hardware was discreet logic.

1974: November 5: Kee Games Introduces Tank!

The importance of the game Tank! in the history of Atari cannot be understated. It was the game that saved Atari from bankruptcy in 1974. The arcade version of Tank! is a two player tank combat game played on a black and white screen. It was very similar to one of the most popular modes of the Atari 2600 Combat cartridge: two player tank combat. Players each used twin joysticks to control their tank (Think of the Battlezone arcade control setup, but side-by-side for two players. –ed.). The game became so popular that the exclusivity agreements demanded by distributors were thrown out the window, allowing Atari and Kee to re-form as one company. The game was designed by Steve Bristow and Lyle Rains at Kee Games, with Lyle doing much of the programming. "I was working on it when I hired Lyle," Steve Bristow recalled, "Then I gave it to him and he finished it. A lot of the implementation was his, but the original idea was mine." The Game cabinet was designed by Peter L. Takaichi and patented October 20, 1975 (US Patent # D243,624).

Tank! is one of the first arcade games to use IC ROM read-only-memory as well as discreet logic chips. The ROM enabled the game to have distinct looking sprites to represent the tanks in the game. Gran-Trak 10 from the same year also used a ROM, but in a very primitive form that used diodes to store the ones and zeros.

1974: November 5: Atari Introduces Qwak!

“Qwak – It’s a Hit! …”

Qwak! was a one player light-gun controlled duck hunting videogame with a black and white monitor. The gun was shaped like a rifle with a security mechanism that would sound an alarm if it was stolen. This was not likely as it used a metal flex cord similar to a pay telephone handset cord to attach the gun to the cabinet.

One duck would fly across the black and white monitor at a time, giving the player three shots to hit it. A "hunting dog" would run out and collect the fallen prize if the player was successful with their aim. The game could be set by the operator to have time limits, extended time and free games. Hardware was a discreet logic design, advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan, with the added tagline: “The sky’s the limit when it comes to our inventiveness”.

1974: November 13: Atari Introduces Touch Me Coin-op Game

Touch Me was a one player, discreet logic coin-operated game that was played without a video screen. Colored lights, aligned in a row, lit-up in succession. The player was tasked with memorizing the pattern, so they could repeat it. The game was very much like the handheld game Simon that would appear years later. Interestingly, Atari tried to combat Simon with a handheld version of Touch Me, but it was an unsuccessful venture.

1974: December/Year End: Atari and Kee Merge

Tank! was such a huge hit for Kee Games that by the end of the year distributors no longer demand exclusive rights. Bushnell was having cash flow problems at Atari (many of which stemmed from problems with Gran Trak 10 and an unprofitable venture into Japan.). Joe Keenan on the other hand was running Kee Games brilliantly. He was much more than a figurehead at Kee Games, and in fact, impressed Bushnell with his business savvy. Atari and Kee merged at the end of 1974. Joe Keenan became president of Atari, Steve Bristow became head of engineering and Al Alcorn became head of R&D. This allowed Bushnell to concentrate on engineering and not on the details of running the day-to-day operations of a company. (Joe Keenan is a bit of an enigma, as there are no detailed articles or interviews to be found by or about him on the Internet. If someone knows more about this fellow, speak up. –ed.)

 

1975

1975: Atari Releases Compugraph Foto Machine

Atari introduces the COMPUGRAPH FOTO, a coin-operated machine that printed life-sized pictures on computer paper for customers. The machine weighed-in at an astronomical 950 pounds! It contained a combination of impact line printer, computer and closed-circuit TV. It was advertised as Durastressâ„¢, with apparently several patents applied for, but little else is known.

1975: January 31: Atari/Kee Games Introduces Pursuit Coin-op

“It’s Plane Fun! …”

Pursuit was a one player World War I flying game where you shoot-down enemies in your crosshairs. Controls were an analog joystick with a single button for firing at enemies. The game had operator settings for several options, including extended play. Pursuit was advertised by Kee Games, but Atari handled all the distribution. At this point, Kee and Atari were no longer hiding the fact that they were the same company.

Pursuit was still a discreet logic design, with the game was advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan. Production release of the game was December 17, 1974, but it shipped in January of 1975 according to the January 31, 1975, US Trademark First Use In Commerce date.

1975: March 11: Atari’s Hi Way Coin-op Goes into Production Release

“Hi Way – All It Needs Is Wheels …”

Hi Way was Atari’s horizontal scrolling driving game that came in a unique sit down cockpit-like cabinet. The player’s goal was to dodge cars and negotiate turns down twisting road. The hardware was a discreet logic design, advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan. The unusual sit-down cabinet was patented October 20, 1975 (U.S. Patent # D243,626). In Europe, the game was named Highway from Atari France, but was only released in a standard cabinet. Production release was on March 11, 1975 (according to the service manual).

1975: April 14: Atari/Kee Introduces Indy 800

“New 8 Player version of the greatest money-maker ever! …”

Indy 800 was an eight player racing game with a full-color screen. The game resembled Gran Trak 10, but allowed for eight players at a time. An Optional control module would allow an official starter to facilitate tournaments. The cabinet included a mirrored canopy to allow spectators to view the racing action. Besides a steering wheel, shift and pedals, each driver had their own horn to honk at will. The game hardware was a discreet logic design, advertised as Durastress™ and marketed with Atari’s Innovative leisure™ slogan.

The major innovation with this game was its color monitor and eight player multi-player cabinet. The cabinet was so large in fact, that it required at least 16 square feet of space! The game cabinet was patented October 20, 1975 (U.S. Patent #D243,625). Production release for the game was March of 1975.

1975: May: Atari/Kee Introduces Tank 2, Tank Cocktail and Tank III

Tank was such a hit that the newly reformed Atari/Kee released several more versions of the game throughout 1975, including Tank 2, Tank III and a cocktail table version of the original Tank. Tank 2 added land mines represented by x’s. All the games still featured discreet logic hardware with ROM to represent the tanks and other objects. The advertising for all of these games said that each game was released by Kee Games, but now added “A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Atari”. All games were advertised as Durastress™ and utilized the Innovative leisure™ slogan.

1975: May: 1974 - 1975 Fiscal Year

Atari's sales reach almost $40 million.

1975: June 6: Atari Introduces Anti-Aircraft Coin-op

“Put Anti-Aircraft In Your Battle Plans! …”